EOL support trouble in 1.15

[Ian Clatworthy]

Frits Jalvingh wrote:

> After some debugging I found out that not only the shared repo needs a proper 
> format but the branched repo needs a higher format too... It used working tree 
> format 4 while at least 5 was needed... That was not very clear to me (first 
> time I ever encountered a working tree format) - it might be a good idea to at 
> least put that in the reference documentation.

Yes, that's really annoying. I'll update the documentation.

> It might also be a good idea to at least show a warning when someone tries to 
> use EOL filtering while the underlying format(s) do not support it - it now 
> failed without any indication and that was hard to debug; I only found out 
> about this after lavishly sprinkling print statements thru the bazaar source 
> code ;-)

I'll consider this. Until we support branch-specific rules though, my
main concern is that the warning will become really annoying because the
rules need to be defined "globally" for all branches on your computer.

> OK, now filtering works but I have something unexpected. I'm running on Linux, 
> and all of my filtered files have been commited using lf eols (in the 
> repository).
> 
> So, as a test, I added eol = crlf to the rules file for all files and branched. 
> The result was a filtered working tree (files have crlf line endings) but all of 
> these files show as "modified". bzr status shows all 8000 of them as modified;

That's clearly a bug. I can reproduce it and I'm in the process of
fixing it now.

> doing a bzr diff on a file shows no changes:

That bit is correct.

> jal at pyramides:~/new2/trunk$ bzr diff to.etc.domui/.classpath
> === modified file 'to.etc.domui/.classpath'
> 
> I tried commiting; it commits all of these files

That's wrong as well. The underlying cause is the same thing causing
status to display the wrong results. I'm onto it and hope to have a fix
in the next day or two.

Ian C.